IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirb/v46y2019i3p511-533.html

Evaluating the scalability of public participation in urban land use planning: A comparison of Geoweb methods with face-to-face meetings

Author

Listed:
  • Piotr Jankowski
  • MichaÅ‚ Czepkiewicz
  • Marek MÅ‚odkowski
  • Zbigniew ZwoliÅ„ski
  • MichaÅ‚ Wójcicki

Abstract

Two modes of participatory engagement in local land use planning are contrasted and compared: the asynchronous mode enabled by Geoweb applications for collecting and deliberating public preferences, and the same-place/same-time mode exemplified by public meetings. Using data from a public participation process that took place between June 2014 and July 2015 in Poznań, Poland, the article compares the scalability of each mode and evaluates it from the planners’ perspective. The findings show that Geoweb applications scale public participation more effectively than public meetings. The ability to attract a relatively large number of diverse participants contributed to the positive evaluation of participation outcomes by planners. The results of online participation have been reflected in the land use plan provisions and improved the transparency and access to planning documents. Several issues related to online participation including: bridging the educational gap, the digital divide, and focusing the attention of participants on a specific problem at hand remain still unresolved.

Suggested Citation

  • Piotr Jankowski & MichaÅ‚ Czepkiewicz & Marek MÅ‚odkowski & Zbigniew ZwoliÅ„ski & MichaÅ‚ Wójcicki, 2019. "Evaluating the scalability of public participation in urban land use planning: A comparison of Geoweb methods with face-to-face meetings," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 46(3), pages 511-533, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:46:y:2019:i:3:p:511-533
    DOI: 10.1177/2399808317719709
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2399808317719709
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2399808317719709?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gregory Brown & Maggi Kelly & Debra Whitall, 2014. "Which 'public'? Sampling effects in public participation GIS (PPGIS) and volunteered geographic information (VGI) systems for public lands management," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 57(2), pages 190-214, February.
    2. Greg Brown & Sean Yeong Wei Chin, 2013. "Assessing the Effectiveness of Public Participation in Neighbourhood Planning," Planning Practice & Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(5), pages 563-588, October.
    3. Maarit Kahila-Tani & Anna Broberg & Marketta Kyttä & Taylor Tyger, 2016. "Let the Citizens Map—Public Participation GIS as a Planning Support System in the Helsinki Master Plan Process," Planning Practice & Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(2), pages 195-214, March.
    4. Ian Babelon & Alexander Ståhle & Berit Balfors, 2017. "Toward Cyborg PPGIS: exploring socio-technical requirements for the use of web-based PPGIS in two municipal planning cases, Stockholm region, Sweden," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 60(8), pages 1366-1390, August.
    5. Renée E. Sieber & Pamela J. Robinson & Peter A. Johnson & Jon M. Corbett, 2016. "Doing Public Participation on the Geospatial Web," Annals of the American Association of Geographers, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 106(5), pages 1030-1046, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Erik Glaas & Mattias Hjerpe & Martin Karlson & Tina-Simone Neset, 2020. "Visualization for Citizen Participation: User Perceptions on a Mainstreamed Online Participatory Tool and Its Usefulness for Climate Change Planning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-16, January.
    2. Pilvi Nummi, 2018. "Crowdsourcing Local Knowledge with PPGIS and Social Media for Urban Planning to Reveal Intangible Cultural Heritage," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 3(1), pages 100-115.
    3. Claire Daniel & Christopher Pettit, 2022. "Charting the past and possible futures of planning support systems: Results of a citation network analysis," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 49(7), pages 1875-1892, September.
    4. Kimberly Jones, 2023. "Community Engagement in Local Communities: Hearing the Voices of the Public," SPP Research Papers, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, vol. 16(32), October.
    5. Francis Marleau Donais & Irène Abi-Zeid & E. Owen D. Waygood & Roxane Lavoie, 2021. "A Framework for Post-Project Evaluation of Multicriteria Decision Aiding Processes from the Stakeholders’ Perspective: Design and Application," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(5), pages 1161-1191, October.
    6. Sonja Kivinen & Kaarina Vartiainen & Timo Kumpula, 2018. "People and Post-Mining Environments: PPGIS Mapping of Landscape Values, Knowledge Needs, and Future Perspectives in Northern Finland," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-23, December.
    7. Suthee Sangiambut & Renee Sieber, 2016. "The V in VGI: Citizens or Civic Data Sources," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 1(2), pages 141-154.
    8. Sergey Revyakin, 2018. "On the Effectiveness of Electronic Platforms of Citizen Participation in Public Administration," Public administration issues, Higher School of Economics, issue 2, pages 94-113.
    9. Pamela Robinson & Peter A. Johnson, 2021. "Pandemic-Driven Technology Adoption: Public Decision Makers Need to Tread Cautiously," International Journal of E-Planning Research (IJEPR), IGI Global Scientific Publishing, vol. 10(2), pages 59-65, April.
    10. Beni Rohrbach & Sharolyn Anderson & Patrick Laube, 2016. "The effects of sample size on data quality in participatory mapping of past land use," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 43(4), pages 681-697, July.
    11. Yasin Yaman & Seda Örücü, 2025. "Spatial Distribution of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Rural Landscapes Using PGIS and SolVES," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(14), pages 1-18, July.
    12. Aubert, Alice H. & Esculier, Fabien & Lienert, Judit, 2020. "Recommendations for online elicitation of swing weights from citizens in environmental decision-making," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 7(C).
    13. Schröter, Matthias & Kraemer, Roland & Mantel, Martin & Kabisch, Nadja & Hecker, Susanne & Richter, Anett & Neumeier, Veronika & Bonn, Aletta, 2017. "Citizen science for assessing ecosystem services: Status, challenges and opportunities," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 80-94.
    14. Rico H Herzog & Juliana E Gonçalves & Geertje Slingerland & Reinout Kleinhans & Holger Prang & Frances Brazier & Trivik Verma, 2024. "Cities for citizens! Public value spheres for understanding conflicts in urban planning," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 61(7), pages 1327-1344, May.
    15. Kotzebue, Julia R., 2022. "Integrated urban transport infrastructure development: The role of digital social geo-communication in Hamburg's TEN-T improvement," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    16. Bohman, Helena & Ryan, Jean & Stjernborg, Vanessa & Nilsson, Désirée, 2021. "A study of changes in everyday mobility during the Covid-19 pandemic: As perceived by people living in Malmö, Sweden," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 109-119.
    17. Hae Ok Choi, 2020. "An Evolutionary Approach to Technology Innovation of Cadastre for Smart Land Management Policy," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-19, February.
    18. Pilvi Nummi, 2018. "Crowdsourcing Local Knowledge with PPGIS and Social Media for Urban Planning to Reveal Intangible Cultural Heritage," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 3(1), pages 100-115.
    19. Cristina Ampatzidou & Katharina Gugerell & Teodora Constantinescu & Oswald Devisch & Martina Jauschneg & Martin Berger, 2018. "All Work and No Play? Facilitating Serious Games and Gamified Applications in Participatory Urban Planning and Governance," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 3(1), pages 34-46.
    20. Mattias Hjerpe & Erik Glaas & Sofie Storbjörk, 2018. "Scrutinizing Virtual Citizen Involvement in Planning: Ten Applications of an Online Participatory Tool," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(3), pages 159-169.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:46:y:2019:i:3:p:511-533. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.